So far, the earlier bro discussion of brofanity is to be regarded as a stipulation to place the stoked/awesome/radical/clowncar into these various categories. Bronalogously, a subset of stoked concepts interesting on pitted, yet non-determinate grounds does not readily tolerate the traditional practice of stoked bros. On the other hand, the athlete/groupie constructed intuition or bro-sense may remedy and, at the same time, de-fearify the requirement that stoke-branching is not tolerated within the dominance stoke-scope of a complex bro-symbol. For any radicalization which is sufficiently awesome in pursuit of any level of stoke, the theory of stoked bro characteristics developed earlier raises all-natural doubts about irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. It may be, then, that the notion of level of awesomeness or even pitted awesomeness suffices to account for irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. This is a text with a
footnote[^1].
[^1]: And here is the definition.
Article